Inertians Joined By Scoffers

I've long railed against what I like to call inertians.

Those we encounter on a bid with first instinct always to retain the status quo.

They are avowedly change-averse.

Everything's fine as it is, well if not quite so rosy, then will be, soon.

Firmly in the Denial phase of those pesky 'change' models.

Or with my preferred positive outlook, in the 'pre-contemplative' zone.

Such people can be highly destructive to both our and our chief prospect ambitions, as well as stifling even the most vague notion of progress.

They simply do not accept that to stand still is to fall behind.

Worse still, is when they exhibit that gilded gaze of golden age thinking. Believing things were better before. Hail the ante status quo. The sooner we return to it, the better, they cry.

When this embraces their desire to reverse any loss perceived as occurred, there's further danger inherent in the backward-facing chaos of rampant revanchism.

I've worked and written extensively on selling 'change'. And its cousin, seeking stability over understanding uncertainty. So was delighted to read broadsheet columnist, Juliet Samuel, propose a new character capable of attacking our pleas for betterment.

Scoffers.

I'd best leave the precise context to one side. Although I note with dread a trident of weapons as claimed; non-impartial lawfare, dysfunctional bureaucracy and gaslighting. Which shudderingly, we can meet in the Enterprise space too.

One reason this new label resonated with me, is that I have called out such on deals down the years.

Principally, in terms of stating that they 'only ever say 'no' to something, then tell you why you shouldn't do anything'. Never proffering an alternative course of action that is different from the present. Mocking any (my) proposal with a dismissive, 'it won't work here'. Smugly thinking, and telling everyone too, that they are oh-so-clever.

The undercurrent of the trait, is that whilst robust questioning and assessment of options is valid, when the line is breached into territory of deluded defiance through the derision of our plans, to move on we must demonstrate iron will.

Here's her thoughts giving rise to definition [sub'n req'd];

"I’ve had enough of the scoffers. It’s all they ever do: someone proposes a solution to a problem and before they’ve even finished speaking you can hear the professional scoffsmen and women clearing their throats, ready to cover us all in hopeless, scoffing scorn.
They know the rules of this intricate rock-paper-scissors game better than you and they are here to tell you that there’s a piece of paper that will beat that rock you’ve just lobbed into the debate, that’s going to wrap it up in paperwork before it even lands — before it launches! Just you wait. Then we can all go back to doing nothing about urgent problems ..."

We could very much add a flag on our funnel routines to mark potential scoffers. Beyond the mere prompt to identify such deal-breakers - and let's not forget, prospect dream-killers - comes a proto-plan to handle them. Take this further précis;

"What the scoffers can’t see, or refuse to notice, is the ultimate result of their victory. Eventually, the unaddressed problem gets worse and worse until even they can’t deny it ... and they themselves end up making proposals even more outlandish than ideas they once scoffed at."

What serious potential buyer would not wish to mitigate against that impending outcome? Best we let them know what's at stake. The earlier the better.